DOCSLIB.ORG

1 the Use of Nuclear Propulsion, Power and “In-Situ”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 the Use of Nuclear Propulsion, Power and “In-Situ” The Use of Nuclear Propulsion, Power and “In-Situ” Resources for Routine Lunar Space Transportation and Commercial Base Development by Dr. Stanley K. Borowski NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, Ohio, USA e-mail: [email protected] presented at the International Lunar Conference 2003 Waikoloa Marriott Beach Hotel Waikoloa, Hawaii November 16-22, 2003 Exploration Transportation A Vision of the Future on the Moon “2100: A Space Odyssey?” Exploration Transportation 1 Index Map Showing the Apollo 17 Landing Site and Major Geographic Features of Taurus-Littrow Region Exploration Transportation Volcanic Glass from the Apollo 17 Mission to Taurus-Littrow is Attractive for LUNOX Production The best lunar oxygen ore found during the Apollo Program is the volcanic glass, Oxygen yield is directly related to iron abundance for the full range of (“orange soil”) found at Taurus-Littrow. The glass beads are ~40 µm in diameter. soil compositions. Highest yields are from “ FeO-rich” volcanic glass. The orange beads are clear glass, while the black beads cooled at bit more slowly and had a chance to crystallize. • Oxygen production from “FeO-rich” volcanic glass is a 2 step process: FeO + H2 -------> Fe + H2O 2 H2O -------> 2H2 + O2 (LUNOX) (Hydrogen Reduction & Water Formation) (Water Electrolysis & Hydrogen Recycling) Ref: Carlton Allen, “Prospecting for Oxygen on the Moon”, Ad Astra, Nov. / Dec. 1996, pg. 34 Exploration Transportation 2 Rover / NERVA* Program Summary (1959-1972) • 20 Rocket/reactors designed, built and tested at cost of ~$1.4 billion • Engine sizes tested – 50-250 klbf • H2 exit temperatures achieved – 2,350-2,550 K (Graphite fuel) • Isp capability – 825-850 sec (hot bleed cycle) • Burn duration – 62 min (NRX-A6 - single burn) – > 4 hrs (NRX-XE - 28 burns / accumulated burn time) • Engine thrust-to-weight – ~3 for 75 klbf NERVA • “Open Air” testing at Nevada Test Site * NERVA: Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle NERVA program experimental engine (XE) Applications demonstrated 28 startup / shutdown cycles during tests in 1969. Exploration Transportation Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) Propulsion What’s New? Then (Rover/NERVA:1959–72) Now • Engine sizes tested • “Current” focus is on smaller NTR sizes – 50–250 klbf – 5–15 klbf (Code S science–humans) Smaller, Higher Performance • H2 exit temps achieved • Higher temp. fuels being developed – 2,350–2,550K (Graphite) – 2,700K (Composite), 2,900K (Cermet) and ~3,100K (Ternary Carbides) • Isp capability Easier to test • Isp capability – 825–850 sec (hot bleed) – 915–1005 sec (expander cycle) • Engine thrust-to-weight • Advances in chemical rockets/materials – ~3 for 75 klbf NERVA – ~3–6 for small NTR designs Environmentally “Green” • Testing (Rover/NERVA) • Small NTR allows full power testing in – “Open Air” exhaust at For Public – “Contained Test Facility” at INEL with Nevada test site Acceptance “scrubbed” H2 exhaust Exploration Transportation 3 Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) Propulsion -- Key Technology / Mission Features -- • NTR engines have negligible radioactivity at launch / simplifies handling and stage processing activities at KSC - < 10 Curies / 3 NTR Mars stage vs ~400,000 Curies in Cassini’s 3 RTGs • High thrust / Isp NTR uses same technologies as chemical rockets • Short burn durations (~25-50 mins) and rapid LEO departure • Less propellant mass than all chemical implies fewer ETO launches 3.24m • NTR engines can be configured for both propulsive thrust and electric power generation -- “bimodal” operation • Fewest mission elements and much simpler space operations • Engine size aimed at maximizing mission versatility -- robotic science, Moon, Mars and NEA missions • NTR technology is evolvable to reusability and “in-situ” resource utilization (e.g., LANTR -- NTR with LOX “afterburner” nozzle) 1.56m 15 klbf NTR Exploration Transportation Exploration Transportation 4 “LOX-Augmented” NTR (LANTR) Concept --Engine, Vehicle and Mission Benefits-- Exploration Transportation “LOX-Augmented” Nuclear Thermal Rocket (LANTR) “Afterburner” Nozzle Concept Demonstration Fuel-rich H/O Engine Used to Simulate NTR • LANTR Concept and Benefits: - “Afterburner” nozzle increases thrust by injecting & GO2 combusting GO2 downstream of the NTR throat GH - Enables NTR with variable thrust and Isp capability 2 by varying the nozzle O/H mixture ratio (MR) - Operation at modest MRs (<1.0) helps increase bulk 3 GO2 Supersonic Supersonic Combustion Cascade Injectors & Thrust Augmentation propellant density for packaging in smaller volume Goal: >30% or more launch vehicles - LANTR’s bipropellant operation enables smaller, faster Moon / Mars vehicles when using extraterrestrial sources of H2 and O2 • LANTR Test Program Objectives: (Aerojet & GRC) - Measure thrust augmentation from oxygen injection Cascade Injectors (2 of 3) and supersonic combustion using small, fuel-rich H/O engine with two different area ratio nozzles (@ 25:1 and 50:1) as “non-nuclear” NTR simulator. - Use results to calibrate reactive CFD assessment of bimodal LANTR engine • Status: LANTR afterburner nozzle demonstrated - Oxygen injection into hot supersonic flow - Supersonic combustion in the nozzle - Elevated nozzle pressures measured - Benign nozzle wall environment observed - Increase O2 consumption rate with nozzle length Baseline H/O Thrust: 2100 lbf at 1000 psia and MR = 1.5. With GO2 - Thrust augmentation >50% measured injection into nozzle, measured thrust due to supersonic combustion is 3200 lbf (~52% thrust augmentation achieved at 50:1 and MRL~3.0 ) Exploration Transportation 5 Implementation Approach for “LANTR-Based” Lunar Space Transportation System Architecture • Objectives: • Reduce “up-front” investment costs for “in-space” assembly infrastructure • Eliminate need for developing new ~130 t “Saturn V”-class HLLV -- major cost element of a lunar transportation system (LTS) • Maximize delivered payload to the surface on each lunar landing mission • Minimize LTS “recurring costs” so that commercialization and human settlement of the Moon can become practical • Strategy: • Utilize “all LH2” NTR-powered LTV operating initially in an “expendable mode” • Expendable approach reduces support infrastructure, IMLEO / allows use of Shuttle-C or “Shuttle-derived” heavy lift vehicle (SDHLV) for Earth-to-orbit launch • Cargo missions precede piloted with surface payloads “dedicated” primarily to LUNOX production and habitation requirements • LUNOX used for refueling LLVs initially, then LANTR-powered LTVs • Transitioning to “reusable” LTS architecture at the earliest possible date improves life cycle costs • Accumulated cost savings reinvested “gradually” in support infrastructure Exploration Transportation “Shuttle-Derived” Heavy Lift Vehicle (SDHLV) Options for Future Human Lunar Mission Ref: S. K. Borowski, et al., “2001: A Space Odyssey” Revisited – The Feasibility of 24 Hour Commuter Flights to the Moon Using NTR Propulsion with LUNOX Afterburners,” NASA/TM—1998-208830 (December 1998) Exploration Transportation 6 Reference “Lunar Orbit Rendezvous” (LOR) Mission Ground Rules and Assumptions • Payload Outbound: • Payload Inbound: • Parking Orbits: • Trans-lunar injection ²V assumed to be 3100 m/s + g-losses • Lunar orbit capture/trans-Earth injection ² V’s assumed to be 915 m/s • Earth return: Direct capsule entry • Earth gravity assist disposal ² V assumed to be 194 m/s (for NTR missions) • Mission duration: 54 days* (2 in LEO, 7 in transit, 45 days at Moon) • ETO type/payload capability: Shuttle-C or SDHLV / 66 t to 407 km circular • LTV assembly scenario: 2 ETO launches with EOR&D (IMLEO < 132 t) *Chemical TLI and NTR “core” stages in LEO for 30 days prior to second ETO launch. Ref: S. K. Borowski, et al., “2001: A Space Odyssey” Revisited – The Feasibility of 24 Hour Commuter Flights to the Moon Using NTR Propulsion with LUNOX Afterburners,” NASA/TM—1998-208830 (December 1998) Exploration Transportation Lunar NTR / LANTR Space Transportation System Assumptions • NTR / LANTR = 15 klbf/4904 lbm (LH2 NTR) Systems: = 15 klbf/5797 lbm (LANTR @ MR=0.0) = Tricarbide/Cryogenic LH2 and LOX = 940 s (@ O/F MR = 0.0/LH2 only) = 647 s (@ O/F MR = 3.0) = 514 s (@ O/F MR = 7.0) = 2.84 kg/MWt of reactor power = 1% of total tank capacity = 1.5% of total tank capacity = 3% of usable LH2 propellant • RCS System: =N2O4/MMH =320 s = 5% of total RCS propellants • Cryogenic = “Weldalite” Al/Li alloy Tankage: = 4.6 - 7.6 m = Cylindrical tanks with ¦ 2/2 domes = 2 inches MLI + micrometeoroid debris shield = 1.31/2.44 kg/m2/month (LEO @ ~ 240 K) = 0.56/0.90 kg/m2/month (in-space @ ~ 172 K) = 1.91/3.68 kg/m2/month (LLO @ ~ 272 K) • Contingency Engines, shields and stage dry mass = 15% kheed Eqn” heat flux estimates for MLI ² t ~ 2 inches Ref: S. K. Borowski, et al., “2001: A Space Odyssey” Revisited – The Feasibility of 24 Hour Commuter Flights to the Moon Using NTR Propulsion with LUNOX Afterburners,” NASA/TM—1998-208830 (December 1998) Exploration Transportation 7 Evolution of NTR-Based Lunar Transportation System With LUNOX Development & Utilization Required LUNOX Levels: b) "84 hr" a) "84 hr" Expendable NTR ~20 t ~80 t ~210 t Expendable LH2 Only e) "24 hr" Shuttle Chemical Reusable LANTR LOX/LH2 c) "84 hr" With LUNOX Reusable NTR LH2 Only 15 t "Commuter" d) "84 hr" Reusable Module 8.8 t Cargo/ LANTR LTV 9 t With LUNOX Cargo No Lander 5 t Cargo 24 t cargo/ 4.6 m 4.6 m 14 t 4.6 m LOX LH2 LH2 LH2 LOX LOX LH2 4.6 m ~44 m 7.6 m LOX 7.6 m 7.6 m LH2 LH2 7.6 m LH2 LH2 LH2 IMLEO (t) = 132 132 98 152 196 Ref: Borowski et al., NASA/TM--1998-208830
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Apollo Program 1 Apollo Program
    Apollo program 1 Apollo program The Apollo program was the third human spaceflight program carried out by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the United States' civilian space agency. First conceived during the Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower as a three-man spacecraft to follow the one-man Project Mercury which put the first Americans in space, Apollo was later dedicated to President John F. Kennedy's national goal of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" by the end of the 1960s, which he proposed in a May 25, 1961 address to Congress. Project Mercury was followed by the two-man Project Gemini (1962–66). The first manned flight of Apollo was in 1968 and it succeeded in landing the first humans on Earth's Moon from 1969 through 1972. Kennedy's goal was accomplished on the Apollo 11 mission when astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed their Lunar Module (LM) on the Moon on July 20, 1969 and walked on its surface while Michael Collins remained in lunar orbit in the command spacecraft, and all three landed safely on Earth on July 24. Five subsequent Apollo missions also landed astronauts on the Moon, the last in December 1972. In these six spaceflights, 12 men walked on the Moon. Apollo ran from 1961 to 1972, and was supported by the two-man Gemini program which ran concurrently with it from 1962 to 1966. Gemini missions developed some of the space travel techniques that were necessary for the success of the Apollo missions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Following Are Edited Excerpts from Two Interviews Conducted with Dr
    Interviews with Dr. Wernher von Braun Editor's note: The following are edited excerpts from two interviews conducted with Dr. Wernher von Braun. Interview #1 was conducted on August 25, 1970, by Robert Sherrod while Dr. von Braun was deputy associate administrator for planning at NASA Headquarters. Interview #2 was conducted on November 17, 1971, by Roger Bilstein and John Beltz. These interviews are among those published in Before This Decade is Out: Personal Reflections on the Apollo Program, (SP-4223, 1999) edited by Glen E. Swanson, whick is vailable on-line at http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4223/sp4223.htm on the Web. Interview #1 In the Apollo Spacecraft Chronology, you are quoted as saying "It is true that for a long time we were not in favor of lunar orbit rendezvous. We favored Earth orbit rendezvous." Well, actually even that is not quite correct, because at the outset we just didn't know which route [for Apollo to travel to the Moon] was the most promising. We made an agreement with Houston that we at Marshall would concentrate on the study of Earth orbit rendezvous, but that did not mean we wanted to sell it as our preferred scheme. We weren't ready to vote for it yet; our study was meant to merely identify the problems involved. The agreement also said that Houston would concentrate on studying the lunar rendezvous mode. Only after both groups had done their homework would we compare notes. This agreement was based on common sense. You don't start selling your scheme until you are convinced that it is superior.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Greatest Projects and Their Engineers - VII
    America's Greatest Projects and Their Engineers - VII Course No: B05-005 Credit: 5 PDH Dominic Perrotta, P.E. Continuing Education and Development, Inc. 22 Stonewall Court Woodcliff Lake, NJ 076 77 P: (877) 322-5800 [email protected] America’s Greatest Projects & Their Engineers-Vol. VII The Apollo Project-Part 1 Preparing for Space Travel to the Moon Table of Contents I. Tragedy and Death Before the First Apollo Flight A. The Three Lives that Were Lost B. Investigation, Findings & Recommendations II. Beginning of the Man on the Moon Concept A. Plans to Land on the Moon B. Design Considerations and Decisions 1. Rockets – Launch Vehicles 2. Command/Service Module 3. Lunar Module III. NASA’s Objectives A. Unmanned Missions B. Manned Missions IV. Early Missions V. Apollo 7 Ready – First Manned Apollo Mission VI. Apollo 8 - Orbiting the Moon 1 I. Tragedy and Death Before the First Apollo Flight Everything seemed to be going well for the Apollo Project, the third in a series of space projects by the United States intended to place an American astronaut on the Moon before the end of the 1960’s decade. Apollo 1, known at that time as AS (Apollo Saturn)-204 would be the first manned spaceflight of the Apollo program, and would launch a few months after the flight of Gemini 12, which had occurred on 11 November 1966. Although Gemini 12 was a short duration flight, Pilot Buzz Aldrin had performed three extensive EVA’s (Extra Vehicular Activities), proving that Astronauts could work for long periods of time outside the spacecraft.
    [Show full text]
  • Hack the Moon Bibliography
    STORY TITLE SOURCES General Sources for Many Topics and Stories - the following books served Digital Apollo by David A. Mindell as sources of both specific and general information on the Apollo Project and were utilized in many places across the website. Journey to the Moon: The History of the Apollo Guidance Computer by Eldon C. Hall Apollo 13 by James Lovell and Jeffrey Kluger Sunburst and Luminary: An Apollo Memoir by Don Eyles Apollo 8 by Jeffrey Kluger Left Brains for the Right Stuff by Hugh Blair-Smith Apollo by Zack Scott Ramon Alonso's Moon Mission Grammar Ramon Alonso Interview MIT Science Reporter:The Apollo Guidance Computer -- https://infinitehistory.mit.edu/video/mit-science-reporter%E2% 80%94computer-apollo-1965 Apollo's Iron Man: Doc Draper https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/27/obituaries/charles-s-draper-engineer-guided-astronauts-to-moon.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1987/07/28/charles-draper-dies-at-age-85/4bdedf80-c033-4563-a129- eb425d37180a/?utm_term=.ab5f7aaa7b19 http://www.nmspacemuseum.org/halloffame/detail.php?id=6 http://news.mit.edu/2015/michael-collins-speaks-about-first-moon-landing-0402 https://www.nap.edu/read/4548/chapter/7#126 Digital Fly-By-Wire Left Brains For The Right Stuff by Hugh Blair-Smith www.nasa.gov https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/july/flight-training-magazine/fly-by-wire www.aircraft.airbus.com aviationweek.com/blog/1987 http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2011/t_5.html The Amazing DSKY: A Leapfrog in Computer Science E-2567 -- Operations & Functions of the MINKEY
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Lunar Architecture
    4. Lunar Architecture 4.1 Summary and Recommendations As defined by the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), the lunar architecture is a combination of the lunar “mission mode,” the assignment of functionality to flight elements, and the definition of the activities to be performed on the lunar surface. The trade space for the lunar “mission mode,” or approach to performing the crewed lunar missions, was limited to the cislunar space and Earth-orbital staging locations, the lunar surface activities duration and location, and the lunar abort/return strategies. The lunar mission mode analysis is detailed in Section 4.2, Lunar Mission Mode. Surface activities, including those performed on sortie- and outpost-duration missions, are detailed in Section 4.3, Lunar Surface Activities, along with a discussion of the deployment of the outpost itself. The mission mode analysis was built around a matrix of lunar- and Earth-staging nodes. Lunar-staging locations initially considered included the Earth-Moon L1 libration point, Low Lunar Orbit (LLO), and the lunar surface. Earth-orbital staging locations considered included due-east Low Earth Orbits (LEOs), higher-inclination International Space Station (ISS) orbits, and raised apogee High Earth Orbits (HEOs). Cases that lack staging nodes (i.e., “direct” missions) in space and at Earth were also considered. This study addressed lunar surface duration and location variables (including latitude, longi- tude, and surface stay-time) and made an effort to preserve the option for full global landing site access. Abort strategies were also considered from the lunar vicinity. “Anytime return” from the lunar surface is a desirable option that was analyzed along with options for orbital and surface loiter.
    [Show full text]
  • The Apollo Lunar Orbit Rendezvous Architecture Decision Revisited
    Student Session II Paper No. GT-SSEC.E.2 The Apollo Lunar Orbit Rendezvous Architecture Decision Revisited David M. Reeves1 Georgia Institute of Technology National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA, 23666 Michael D. Scher2 University of Maryland National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA, 23666 Dr. Alan W. Wilhite3 Georgia Institute of Technology National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA, 23666 Dr. Douglas O. Stanley4 Georgia Institute of Technology National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA, ABSTRACT The 1962 Apollo architecture mode decision process was revisited with modern analysis and systems engineer tools to determine driving selection criteria and technology/operational mode design decisions that may be used for NASA’s current Space Exploration program. Results of the study agreed with the Apollo selection of the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous mode based on the technology maturity and politics in 1962. Using today’s greater emphasis on human safety and improvements in technology and design maturity, a slight edge may be given to the direct lunar mode over lunar orbit rendezvous. Also, the NOVA direct mode and Earth orbit rendezvous mode are not competitive based any selection criteria. Finally, reliability and development, operations, and production costs are major drivers in today’s decision process. 1Graduate Research Assistant, Georgia Institute of Technology, 100 Exploration Way, AIAA Student Member. 2 Graduate Research Assistant, University of Maryland, 100 Exploration Way, AIAA Student Member. 3 Langley Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology, 100 Exploration Way, AIAA Associate Fellow. 4 Langley Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology, 100 Exploration Way, AIAA Member. Page 1 of 12 Pages Student Session II Paper No.
    [Show full text]
  • NTR Systems Assessment for NASA's First Lunar Outpost Scenario
    NASA Technical Memorandum 106748 AIAA-92-3812 l "Fast Track" NTR Systems Assessment for NASA's First Lunar Outpost Scenario Stanley K. Borowski and Stephen W. Alexander Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio .- / " ./ Prepared for the 28th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit cosponsored by AlAA, SAE, ASME, and ASEE Nashville, Tennessee, July 6-8, 1992 National Aeronautics and •Space Administration ---_.. _-- _.... _---_ ... _-- "FAST TRACK" NTR SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT FOR NASA'S FIRST LUNAR OUTPOST SCENARIO Stanley K. Borowski* Stephen W. Alexander** Nuclear Propulsion Office Advanced Space Analysis Office NASA/Lewis Research Center NASA/Lewis Research Center 21000 Brookpark Road 21000 Brookpark Road Cleveland, OH 44135 Cleveland, OH 44135 ABSTRACT engine/stage configurations, and examines the impact on engine selection and vehicle design Integrated systems and mission study results resulting from a consideration of alternative are presented which quantify the ratio'nale and NTR fuel forms and lunar mission profiles. benefits for developing and using nuclear thermal rocket (NTR) technology for returning humans to the Moon in the early 2000's. At present, the INTRODUCTION Exploration Program Office (ExPO) is considering chemical propulsion for its "First Lunar Outpost" The Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) outlined (FLO) misSion, and NTR propulsion for the more by President Bush on July 20 , 1989, the 20th demanding Mars missions to follow. The use of an anniversary of Apollo 11, calls for a return to the NTR-based lunar transfer stage, capable of Moon "to stay" early in the next century, followed evolving to Mars mission applications, could by a journey to Mars using systems "space result in an accelerated schedule, reduced cost tested" in the lunar environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Apollo's Lunar Module Bridged Technological Leap to the Moon
    Apollo's Lunar Module Bridged Technological Leap to the Moon President John F. Kennedy, speaks in front of an early design for the Apollo lunar module. The large windows were later replaced with smaller, down-facing windows. Seats also were removed resulting in a design in which the astronauts stand. NASA Administrator James Webb, Vice President Lyndon Johnson, Dr. Robert Gilruth, director of NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center (now Johnson Space Center) in Houston, and others participate in the activity on Sept. 12, 1962. Credits: White House/Cecil Stoughton On July 24, 1962, Dr. John Houbolt explains his lunar orbit rendezvous concept for landing on the Moon. His approach called for a separate lander which saved weight from the "direct ascent" design in which the entire spacecraft landed on the lunar surface. Credits: NASA (upper left) In the Manned Spacecraft Operations (now the Neil Armstrong Operations and Checkout) Building at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the lunar module for Apollo 10 is being moved for mating with the spacecraft lunar module adapter. Apollo 10 orbited the Moon in May 1969 and served as a "rehearsal" for the first lunar landing. Credits: NASA (upper right) Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong participates in training on June 19, 1969, in the Apollo lunar module (LM) mission simulator. Simulators for both the LM and command module were located in the Flight Crew Training Building at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. Credits: NASA (upper left) On July 20, 1969, the Sun's glare helps illuminate the Apollo 11 lunar module (LM) with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin aboard.
    [Show full text]
  • Using the Space Program from Mercury to Apollo As Portrayed In
    Using the Space Program from Mercury to Apollo as Portrayed in the Movies The Right Stuff and Apollo 13 and in the Mini‐series From the Earth to the Moon as a Teaching Tool James G. Goll Department of Chemistry, Geoscience and Physics Edgewood College, Madison, WI 53711 [email protected] Abstract This chapter will examine how popular media related to the space program can be used to demonstrate the nature and motivation of scientific inquiry and science concepts. For over fifty years, the space program has inspired students of science and engineering. The United States manned space program from project Mercury to Apollo is the subject of two movies, The Right Stuff and Apollo 13, and the mini‐series From the Earth to the Moon. Many documentary style television productions are available to supplement these movies and the miniseries. These documentaries provide recollections from astronauts, flight controllers, and flight directors. Moonshot and To the Moon chronicle the manned space program during the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. The documentary To the Edge and Back inspired the movie, Apollo13. The Science Channel’s Moon Machines show many behind‐the‐scenes people who made the trips to the moon possible. The History Channel used the manned space program as a subject for several of its series: Man, Moment, and Machine, Modern Marvels, 20th Century with Mike Wallace, and Failure is Not an Option. Introduction The movie Apollo13 (1995) and the follow‐up miniseries From the Earth to the Moon (1998), have been used to teach many chemistry concepts (1‐5). Apollo 13 has been shown to produce both high impact upon audiences and high utility for instructors when used as a teaching tool (6).
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from the Lunar Module Program: the Director’S Conclusions
    70th International Astronautical Congress, Washington, DC. Copyright ©2019 by Andrew S. Erickson. All rights reserved. IAC-19,E4,3,7,x53535 LESSONS FROM THE LUNAR MODULE PROGRAM: THE DIRECTOR’S CONCLUSIONS Dr. Andrew S. Erickson* Visiting Scholar, John King Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies, Harvard University Professor of Strategy, United States Naval War College [email protected] * The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone, who welcomes all possible comments and suggestions for improvement via <http://www.andrewerickson.com/contact/>. They do not represent the estimates or policies of the U.S. Navy or any other organization of the U.S. Government. The highlight of Joseph Gavin Jr’s distinguished career as an aerospace engineer and leader was serving as Apollo Lunar Module (LM) Program Director from 1962-72. Gavin believed the Apollo Program “would be the biggest engineering job of history. bigger than building the pyramids or inventing the airplane and would take every ounce of ingenuity. to pull off.” In it, Gavin led as many as 7,500 employees in developing the LM and ultimately building twelve operational vehicles. All met mission requirements, and those that were used worked every time. “For the 1960s, that was the place to be, that was the program to be involved with,” he later reflected. “As tough as it was, none of us would have chosen not to be there.” Developing the state-of-the-art machine required multiple unprecedented innovations and maximization of reliability amid inherently imperfect testing conditions. When congratulated on the success of each LM landing, Gavin typically replied that he would not be happy until his spacecraft and its crew got off the moon.
    [Show full text]
  • Cloud Download
    Enchanted Rendezvous John C. Houbolt and the Genesis of the Lunar-Orbit Rendezvous Concept Enchanted Rendezvous: John C. Houbolt and the Genesis of the Lunar-Orbit Rendezvous Concept by James R. Hansen NASA History Office Code Z NASA Headquarters Washington DC 20546 MONOGRAPHS IN AEROSPACE HISTORY SERIES #4 December 1995 Foreword One of the most critical technical decisions made during the conduct of Project Apollo was the method of flying to the Moon, landing on the surface, and returning to Earth. Within NASA during this debate, several modes emerged. The one eventually chosen was lunar-orbit rendezvous (LOR), a proposal to send the entire lunar spacecraft up in one launch. It would head to the Moon, enter into orbit, and dispatch a small lander to the lunar surface. It was the simplest of the various methods, both in terms of development and operational costs, but it was risky. Because rendezvous would take place in lunar, instead of Earth, orbit, there was no room for error or the crew could not get home. Moreover, some of the trickiest course corrections and maneuvers had to be done after the spacecraft had been committed to a circumlunar flight. Between the time of NASA's conceptualization of the lunar landing program and the decision in favor of LOR in 1962, a debate raged among the advocates of the various methods. John C. Houbolt, an engineer at the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, was one of the most vocal of those supporting LOR and his campaign in 1961 and 1962 helped shape the deliberations in a fundamental way.
    [Show full text]
  • Collection of Research Materials for the HBO Television Series, from the Earth to the Moon, 1940-1997, Bulk 1958-1997
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt8290214d No online items Finding Aid for the Collection of Research Materials for the HBO Television Series, From the Earth to the Moon, 1940-1997, bulk 1958-1997 Processed by Manuscripts Division staff; machine-readable finding aid created by Caroline Cubé © 2004 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. 561 1 Finding Aid for the Collection of Research Materials for the HBO Television Series, From the Earth to the Moon, 1940-1997, bulk 1958-1997 Collection number: 561 UCLA Library, Department of Special Collections Manuscripts Division Los Angeles, CA Processed by: Manuscripts Division staff, 2004 Encoded by: Caroline Cubé © 2004 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Descriptive Summary Title: Collection of Research Materials for the HBO Television Series, From the Earth to the Moon, Date (inclusive): 1940-1997, bulk 1958-1997 Collection number: 561 Creator: Home Box Office (Firm) Extent: 86 boxes (43 linear ft.) Repository: University of California, Los Angeles. Library. Dept. of Special Collections. Los Angeles, California 90095-1575 Abstract: From the earth to the moon was a Clavius Base/Imagine Entertainment production that followed the experiences of the Apollo astronauts in their mission to place a man on the moon. The collection covers a variety of subjects related to events and issues of the United States manned space flight program through Project Apollo and the history of the decades it covered, primarily the 1960s and the early 1970s. The collection contains books, magazines, unidentified excerpts from books and magazines, photographs, videorecordings, glass slides and audiotapes.
    [Show full text]